• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #362 - Overwhelming Forum Power

Hi everyone!

Today we’re going over the release notes from Tuesday, talking about the further plans for the Circinus cycle, and exploring the reaction to last week’s dev diary, The Vision.

3.14.159 Release Notes​

We released the 3.14.159 patch on Tuesday, and these were the release notes:

Improvements​

  • By popular request, greatly expanded the basement storage of the Grand Archive. You now have 18 slots of overflow instead of 4.
  • Replaced the Mysterious Labyrinth event image
  • The Metalheads AI personality can be gained by Individualist Machines or Organic empires that are Very Strong (instead of just Strong)

Balance​

  • The Treasure Hunter Origin now starts leaders with level 3 of Adventurous Spirit, meaning it should no longer constantly be offered as an upgrade.

Bugfixes​

  • Add Beastport, Hatchery and Vivarium Tank to orbital rings, and add Shipyard exclusion rules
  • Added a hyphen to the X-Ray Eye Beam mutation
  • Added the missing loc to Sapient Specimen species rights
  • Added the missing space in the credits' title
  • Added the missing word "Food" to the Arboreal World planet modifier
  • Adjusted perfected genes concept tooltip to align with reality
  • Cyber Democracies no longer get leaders without upkeep
  • Fallback to Weapon ranges if strike craft is used but there's no strike craft component range
  • Fix a bug where, under certain circumstances, a Grand Archive was still considered destroyed after being rebuilt
  • Fix a crash where an AI could capture fauna even if they shouldn't be able to.
  • Fix Captain Ness not being legendary
  • Fix Large Shard Accelerator tags
  • Fix livestock modifier for Wrangler jobs
  • Fix Mutations' Strike Crafts behaviour
  • Fix Mysterious Chart event chain that could get blocked
  • Fix Primal Leaders not being renowned
  • Fix scores for Grand Archive Relics
  • Fix Space Amoebas being hostile to Beastmasters bespite Amoeboid Pacification
  • Fixed some Black Needle ships not displaying their bow section
  • Fixed 2 cosmic storms projects not requiring scientists
  • Gravity Snares can now only re-target to fleets they can capture
  • Gravity Storms no longer cause Obsessed Gestalts to crave consumer goods for their drones
  • Habitat Orbitals should no longer attempt to evade enemy fleets
  • Habitat System Control now provide a Roboticist job for Individual Machines.
  • It is now possible to use Space Fauna as the federation's fleets
  • Reanimated space fauna uses half ship size of their living counterpart
  • Removed tooltip for GOG and MS store achievements to require login to paradox account since this is not the case.
  • Rogue Servitors are now also on energy duty during Gravity Storms
  • Ships modifiers are correctly updated with their new fleet's modifiers before fleet's values calculation
  • Space Fauna uses every components to calculate range
  • Specimens acquired from trades now don't trigger Galactic Curators' unity bonus
  • The Alien Box Event no longer has a nonsensical tooltip for gestalt empires.
  • The Tachyon Beam mutations have found their way to the Tachyon Lance technology.
  • Told the Artillery combat computers to stay at max range
  • Voidworms shouldn't attack empires with Voidworm Immunity before crisis

Stability​

  • Defensive check for nullobj when dealing with auto exploration orders
  • Fix crash when Voidworms try to act on empty fleets
  • Fixed issue with diplomatic distances differences after hotjoin/resync leading to OOS
  • Fixing potential crash when trying to create a ship from a scripted design that contains unusable components for the creator
  • Fixed potential CTD when using FromFromFrom scope in "on_planets_zero_pops" on action
  • Fixes CTD on espionage operation phase tooltip
  • Fixes CTD when ship is killed by missile

Please keep posting any bugs and Out of Syncs you encounter in the bug report forum. Saves able to reproduce the bugs make the fixing go much more smoothly.

If all goes according to plan, we currently expect to have another patch, 3.14.1592, a couple of weeks from now.

The Vision, Continued​

Last week we posted a dev diary on The Vision of Stellaris, and the response has been absolutely overwhelming. As of writing this dev diary, we’re up to around a thousand detailed responses split across various platforms, and we’re reading all of them. I’ve been reading and taking notes since the dev diary was posted, and it’ll take us a little while to get through all of it.

I’m absolutely thrilled with the amount of feedback and the high quality, constructive nature of pretty much every single post. Thank you, everyone.

As a quick initial summary, there seems to be a general consensus with the vision statements, and a high level of support for future changes that improve the game, even if they change existing systems. There seemed to be a pretty strong agreement for exploring alternative systems - especially when it comes to warfare resolution and fleets. There were more diverse feelings around the current pops and job systems, but a large number of you want a more performant system as long as it still captures the general fantasies of the current one. Many of you appear to strongly dislike the current trade system or are at best ambivalent towards it.

The Stellaris community also appears to be much more willing to embrace change than many others - not too surprising considering the number of major changes we’ve made since launch.

Next Week​

Next week we’ll review the changes that Stellaris has undergone over the years, go into more detail about more of the conclusions I’ve reached based on the feedback you’ve given, and might have some preliminary release notes for 3.14.1592.

See you then!

 
  • 75Like
  • 13Love
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Could be very informative to hear the reasoning behind some of the unpopular / painful current mechanics.
I would love more of this please, detailed design documents and rationale for how things are how they are **especially** when there is criticism. I'm not saying it in a "let's see how you defend yourselves" way, but in a "I'd really like to understand your approach" way :)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yeah even when Stellaris was a bit rubbish (2.2 - 3.0) I stuck with it and bought the DLC because I at least knew the devs knew the game was a bit rubbish.

I like to compare it with Elite Dangerous: that's also a game that's under continuous development, that has a lot of problems with pointless grinding to unlock grinds amongst other failings but in their limited communications they never acknowledged there was a problem or any plans to fix the problems so I just gave up playing it.
I think one of the important things is this game's engine, it makes making mods easily.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I agree about performance, a game can be wonderful, but if it bricks a player's computer and forces to left a game unfinished, it's better a good game that runs fluidly to it's end.
Of course, if it can be both wonderful and fast, it's even better.
From the limited information I have, the HOI4 looks like using the same engine as Stellaris, some tasks of HOI4 isn't only on one core.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
- I don't want to be stuck in a forever war because my Federation each captured 1/3 of the target so the target thinks it is 2/3 alive, when it is not.
The weight of an plante is wrong. If I have an import planet of my enemy, the weight is 10. If I have a unbuilt colonies planet, it will add 10 too. And the megastructure and resources within the star system not counted. Domestic economics will not affect the pace of surrender in the war.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
By all the overwhelming feedback and positive attitude regarding Stellaris and how it has developed after the desaster that the 2.2 Megacorp release once was, my biggest concern is still performance.

I am running the game on a super powerful machine and have to admit, the overall rate in what the days are ticking down now is good, no question. But even in the first decades of every run in basically all galaxy sizes the tick stutter is there and it transforms Stellaris into a dia show when entering the lategame, so most of my runs are ending there.

It is just not fun to look at that, especially not with a powerful computer running it. The load on the cpu has so high peak latency every day, that even the video streams on my second monitor start lagging. No other game is able to achieve that, so congrats to the dev team.

I am not sure what is causing, but I now have to see this on the third generation of my computers. It started with 2.1 and the removal of the other two ftl types in favour of hyperlanes and never really went away. My bet would be it on fleet and ship pathing, but who knows.

 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
As a quick initial summary, there seems to be a general consensus with the vision statements, and a high level of support for future changes that improve the game, even if they change existing systems. There seemed to be a pretty strong agreement for exploring alternative systems - especially when it comes to warfare resolution and fleets. There were more diverse feelings around the current pops and job systems, but a large number of you want a more performant system as long as it still captures the general fantasies of the current one. Many of you appear to strongly dislike the current trade system or are at best ambivalent towards it.

The Stellaris community also appears to be much more willing to embrace change than many others - not too surprising considering the number of major changes we’ve made since launch.
I'd like to think this community is more change-accepting than others as we've shaken off those who are conservative with game systems. I still remember when v2.0 launched and there was so much outcry over the "loss" of FTL diversity, when really the non-hyperlane modes had just been shifted to lategame techs. Having said that, I'm sure a lot of conservative minds joined after some of the biggest shakeups in Stellaris mechanics. The flip side is that there's change-addicts who want change just for the sake of experiencing something new, not better.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
When a game rolls out a big change the people who like the new system go "huh cool" and then go back to playing. The people who don't like it post. A general "Hey whaddaya think" dev diary is going to give a more representative, and less caustic, sampling of the community than the self selection process of gettin' mad enough about video games to go yell on the internet about it.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Thanks for the dialogue. We really hope for a detailed analysis of the proposals. And I suggest we separate the topics so that we can focus. And discuss them again, but in parts. Since there is still a lot to say, but it's too much at one time.
Continuing to think about the fleet and the opinion of the players that the number of ships should be reduced, I had an idea. We can increase the required naval capacity for large ships. Now one battleship is equal in capacity to 8 corvettes. If you increase this number to 12 (or 16), the number of large ships in the game will decrease and they will be given more importance. But it will be necessary to raise the power of large ships.
 
A new pop-less job system would be amazing since there would be less hard limitations to the system, but I think the trick is to make it seem like the pops never left or else the magic is lost. And how do you display that on the planetary view? I'm intrigued.
 
I hate the piracy system and the trade routes leading to the capital are an annoyance, I'd prefer trade routes between sectors or leading to other empires instead.
This "All routes lead to the capital" makes it seem like every single empire uses the Spanish fleet model, where all the treasures are strip-mined and moved to the innermost capital sector and no other place in the empire really matters.

Also direct resource trades between empires should be more integrated into the game, (better advertised?) if I'm going to buy resources from the Galactic market and one of my 12 allies can offer me a better price I should somehow be told about that in the gal.market before I make a purchase. Cycliyng through all of the empires willing to trade when you are a diplomatic power can be a chore and you don't get as many good deals as you should because the GM is faster.

Finally, there should be a trade league replacement policy for galactic emperor, I hate it that if megacorp goes into empire they lose their trade policy since the federation is finished.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Let's face it, starbases suck currently. Every single starbase you build is the same with very little variation because there is no reason to do so otherwise. Every starbase is pretty much:
6x Anchorage
1x Naval Logistics Office
1x Hydroponics Bays
1x Resource Silo
1x This Space for Rent

Mostly because of a few niche cases (shipyards which you only need 1 or 2 of) there is no reason to use anything else.

A big part of the problem seems to be that some players play more or less the same game over and over, or are at least only exploring a narrow slice of the play space; similar empires with similar goals and similar play styles. Not only do my starbases not look alike, very few if any look like the above; that's the sort of marginal one that the AI builds that you have to make useful when captured.

In general, starbase slots are far too scarce to waste on anchorages and resource expansion when you can do that with planet slots, which you have several times more of; plus, starbase slots can be used for things that planet slots can't.

For comparison, here's how I tend to use them; this varies pretty significantly with what sort of empire I'm playing. I tend to play wide, expansionistic, not particulary evil empires more often than not; but one of my main goals when setting up a game is for it to not be similar to the last one I played. I almost always play with a custom empire and almost never re-play the same one during the same major patch cycle; IMO that would be like playing Civ with the same leader or country you've played recently.

In the early game and first part of the mid-game, typically starbases are primarily about defense. Usually you're weaker than the AI at this point, especially if the AI is something unpleasant. It's generally far more effective to spend your highly limited Influence expanding into uncontested space that gives you immediate rewards and progress toward goals, rather than making claims that may take ages for you to capitalize on. This means you're typically going to be trying to avoid or prevent war, to focus your economy on growth and expansion (by one means or another); and are thus likely to be the defender. A starbase with a few hangar defense platforms can take on far more than their cost in corvettes, and having forward repair for your offensive forces and fall-back points for your defensive forces makes a huge difference. Additionally, being able to build your colony ships closer to where you're expanding can save literally years in travel time that the resources you spent on those ships are in limbo, not yet earning as a planet.

A typical early one for me might look like:

2x-3x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
2x-1x Hangar
===
1x Crew Quarters
1x Hydroponics Bays

Note that the distinction between Shipyards and Hatcheries for most civs (a single base can only have one type or another) adds yet another wrinkle to strategic planning and variety.

As the game develops, I've generally got four types of starbase: Hostile border front line, hostile border back line, expanding frontier, and interior policing.

Hostile border front line starbases are about early warning, visible tripwire defense, basing for forward fleets (including updates), and slowing down a surprise attack to give fleet elements time to respond and react.

3x - 5x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
1x - 3x Detection Array
0x - 2x Hangar
===
1x Listening Post
1x Crew Quarters
varies, perhaps Fleet Academy or Hydroponics Bay

Hostile border back line starbases are where your fleets have their emergency return home set to. Once you've got gateways, they become more of a fleet construction and basing hub; so I'll frequently put an expanding frontier base on a future gateway location as I go, with the intent of it evolving into a back line or interior base much later depending on how the empire develops.

4x - 6x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
0x - 2x Hangar
===
1x Crew Quarters
1x Fleet Academy
varies, Hydroponics Bay, maybe Resource Silo; later on an assembly yard

Expanding frontier starbases look like the early game ones above, generally. They exist to build civilian ships and provide support for your scouting, research, and beast-clearing forces.

Interior policing starbases are all about collecting trade value and keeping piracy down without having to drag your frame rate and attention span down with managing zillions of patrol forces. As the game progresses and your empire expands, there's a natural evolution from front line or frontier, to back line, to interior.

3x - 6x Hangar
0x - 3x Trade Hub
0x - 1x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
0x - 2x Vivarium Tank
===
0x - 1x Hyperlane Registrar
1x Hydroponics Bay
varies; Nebula Refinery Black Hole Observatory, enclave building, etc. Resource Silo only if there's nothing else useful.

I would argue that the main issue with starbase "sameness" is that the Hangar Bay is both the most effective at extending the patrol radius and patrol power, *and* the most effective actual defensive power to mount in the base itself. The patrol part makes sense, especially if we assume that what is going on is a Babylon 5 like arrangement where fighters or other small craft (an invisible "cutter" class, perhaps?) can transit the gates for short patrols in nearby systems. But missiles are almost always inferior to fighers and subject to the same weakness (point-defense heavy attackers), and the gun batteries don't allow you to pick sensible options and are also weak and short ranged.

What if starbases came with a default, built-in capability similar to the Target Uplink Computer, increasing starbase weapon range based on starbase size by 25% / 50% / 75% / 100%? What if you had either built-in or additional module, say, "Oversized Feed Systems" that increased starbase weapon rate of fire similarly? After all, there's no reason a base can't have power cables several times as thick, advanced automated ammo handling systems, and ready stores much greater than that of a ship that has to move around.

What if we had radically different kinds of starbases? Lithoid and mining empires with asteroid bases; one less slot and part of the cost in minerals, in exchange for a significant multiple to armor and hit points, and less alloy cost. Beast and bio empires with living bases, part of the cost in food instead of alloys and a really high regeneration ability. Commercial bases that are more of a cross between a habitat and a starbase, that have bonuses to trade and economy in peace, and penalties to upkeep during wartime. Dystopian system overlord bases that lean into the Deep Space Black Site option even harder, reducing trade in exchange for "security", with hangar bays that are focused on suppressing and oppressing the system's population.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
A big part of the problem seems to be that some players play more or less the same game over and over, or are at least only exploring a narrow slice of the play space; similar empires with similar goals and similar play styles. Not only do my starbases not look alike, very few if any look like the above; that's the sort of marginal one that the AI builds that you have to make useful when captured.

Actually because it's not optimal (not meta mind you, just optimal) to mix starbase archetypes (shipyard, bastion, resource, or anchorages). As it stands right now, you could just get rid of the 2-6 modules altoghether and replace it with 1 single scaling module slot and gameplay wouldn't change that much.

In general, starbase slots are far too scarce to waste on anchorages and resource expansion when you can do that with planet slots, which you have several times more of; plus, starbase slots can be used for things that planet slots can't.

The problem that I mentioned is that there simply isn't much else to use it for. Sure, you can make a full shipyard or two, but you really don't need more than two full shipyards, because then you're just wasting starbases on shipyards you won't ever use. Sure you can make a bastion at a choke point by stuffing it full of hangars (as I said, the other defense modules are entirely worthless. Torpedo buildings don't take torpedoes short range into account, and the M slot it just stuffs with worthless garbage.) But what are you doing to do with the rest of the 8-28 starbases you're allocated? The only module worth using for 95% of your starbases is the anchorage, since the only other option for increasing naval capacity (Besides techs and traditions of course) is soldiers, but that takes pops that could be better served doing other things and since there really is nothing else that's even close to being optimal.

For comparison, here's how I tend to use them; this varies pretty significantly with what sort of empire I'm playing. I tend to play wide, expansionistic, not particulary evil empires more often than not; but one of my main goals when setting up a game is for it to not be similar to the last one I played. I almost always play with a custom empire and almost never re-play the same one during the same major patch cycle; IMO that would be like playing Civ with the same leader or country you've played recently.

2x-3x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
2x-1x Hangar
===
1x Crew Quarters
1x Hydroponics Bays

Why would you put hangar slots on a shipyard starbase? That makes zero sense whatsoever and is really just wasted modules.

Note that the distinction between Shipyards and Hatcheries for most civs (a single base can only have one type or another) adds yet another wrinkle to strategic planning and variety.

I will admit I do not have Grand Archive, so that system is foreign to me.


Interior policing starbases are all about collecting trade value and keeping piracy down without having to drag your frame rate and attention span down with managing zillions of patrol forces. As the game progresses and your empire expands, there's a natural evolution from front line or frontier, to back line, to interior.

3x - 6x Hangar
0x - 3x Trade Hub
0x - 1x Shipyard / Hatchery / Beastport
0x - 2x Vivarium Tank
===
0x - 1x Hyperlane Registrar
1x Hydroponics Bay
varies; Nebula Refinery Black Hole Observatory, enclave building, etc. Resource Silo only if there's nothing else useful.

As I already explained, trade hubs are worthless. The amount of space base trade is so minuscule that collecting it simply isn't worth the starbase slot for it. And as far as piracy goes, it's more of an annoyance than anything. Pirate fleets never breech over 3k, and it's only really an 'issue' if your fleets are tied up in wars. In all honesty, you can pretty much just put down some hangar defense platforms in these 'pirate trouble spots' and call it a day.

In fact, you can pretty much just cut all trade routes to the capital and unless you are specifically running a trade-based empire, the impact will be minimal.

There's a reason a lot of people in the other thread want to gut/redo the trade system. Because trade and piracy are more minor annoyance than anything.

I would argue that the main issue with starbase "sameness" is that the Hangar Bay is both the most effective at extending the patrol radius and patrol power, *and* the most effective actual defensive power to mount in the base itself. The patrol part makes sense, especially if we assume that what is going on is a Babylon 5 like arrangement where fighters or other small craft (an invisible "cutter" class, perhaps?) can transit the gates for short patrols in nearby systems. But missiles are almost always inferior to fighers and subject to the same weakness (point-defense heavy attackers), and the gun batteries don't allow you to pick sensible options and are also weak and short ranged.

And patrol radius/patrol power is in of itself almost entirely worthless. The only thing it does is prevent piracy which is a minor irritation and little more. And that can be dealt with, as I said, just by putting some defense platforms down in trouble spots where pirates are bound to appear. You don't even need to put up a full starbase, just the regular staroutposts compliment of 3-6 defense platforms is more than enough to deal with any pirate fleets.
Heck, I've had games where even an unupgraded star outpost all by themselves were enough to completely obliterate pirates.

Or if they are too annoying, you could try cutting all trade routes. That works too.

But really... Piracy is such a non-issue (especially at the part of the game where pirates actually start appearing) that they could easily just cut it from the game entirely and 90-98% of players wouldn't even realize it's gone.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
a high level of support for future changes that improve the game, even if they change existing systems.

We already had large changes for the game and the game got better with it. I, and i think a lot of others, will very much embrace changes which make the game better. Currently i dont play much Stellaris, but i am still very much interested in it, even so much that i still read dev diaries, respond to them and read on the stellaris reddit more or less daily. But i may jump again into it with the next DLC. I do look forward to changes and i am ready to fully jump into Stellaris again.
 
Maybe this could also allow for a triangular combat relationship?
The tri-angular combat relationship is already in game after 3.6 combat rework, although it took disguised forms with branching choices.

It is 'brawler(S disintegraters or torpedos)-carriers-artilleries'. Artilleries usually have low tracking, minimum fire range and limited angular, and slow, vulnerable to ambush and bad at resupplying because they are built slower. Carriers that equipped with S weapons have high tracking and good at kiting brawlers, but deals less burst damage and being fragile to artilleries.

I honestly think it is more health compared with tradtional tri-angular combat relationship. It feels less arbitrary.
 
Since it wasn't a topic originally conversation, I'd like to bring up some thoughts that weren't covered. But if I have all of them in one post it'll get way too big for one day so I'll cover individual topics in separate posts.

Today's thoughts: Starbases, Titans, Jugs, and Weapons


On starbases:

Let's face it, starbases suck currently. Every single starbase you build is the same with very little variation because there is no reason to do so otherwise. Every starbase is pretty much:
6x Anchorage
1x Naval Logistics Office
1x Hydroponics Bays
1x Resource Silo
1x This Space for Rent

Mostly because of a few niche cases (shipyards which you only need 1 or 2 of) there is no reason to use anything else. So here are my thoughts on starbase components and proposed overhaul of them.

Defensive Modules/Buildings and Customization:
Defensive buildings have one single problem:

They're worthless. No, less than worthless. No one uses gun batteries or missile (torpedo) buildings. Part of the problem is lack of starbase customizability (though that's another thought later down the line). What good is adding more medium slots to the starbase when it's just going to fill them with stupid garbage?
The other problem is that they they don't scale with the starbase in question.

The only two defense modules even worth a darn are the Hangar and the Ancient Rampart. And even those are questionable. When it comes right down to it, I'd say it's better to just fill them with anchorages than to use any of them, so you can have a bigger fleet for defense than try to stuff 6/12 more defense platforms in.

One mod (that I indirectly used as a part of NSC when I still used that mod. I haven't in years so I don't know if that's still the case) was Starbases Expanded. Its solution was to give you more starbase slots and more defensive items. I don't think the former is necessary as I have a much more elegant solution for it:

Starbase Module/Building Scaling
Basically it works like this: The bigger you make your starbase, the more of an effect the starbase modules have. FOr example, the gun battery at the start only gives you 1 M slot. However, once you upgrade it to a starhold, they give 2. Then 4 when a star fort, then when upgraded to a citadel, it gives 8. Its bonuses to shields and armor increase as well, but not as dramatically. This would help starbases stay ahead of the curb without requiring you to use unyielding as a crutch or stack it full of defense platforms to make it able to take on even a modest fleet.

Which is another problem with starbases, their lack of alt options, over-reliance on defense platforms for the bulk of their defense (and again, there's only one or two real options there) and flexibility. I'll come back to that later.


First off, defensive modules. I'd propose the following:

  • Starbase weapon modules no longer grant bonuses to armor or hull. That gets put on a different building that adds a lump sum.
  • Also ditch trade protection addage because that system is both outdated and dumb. how does a gun on a starbase add trade protection a few systems over? That makes no sense.
  • They don't add defensive platforms either since I propose a building that does that.
  • For orbital rings, all defensive weapon sections are multiplied by 2x. Otherwise they're just less effective versions of existing starbase items.

Modules:
  • Small Battery: Adds 2/4/8/16 small slots to starbase
  • Point Defense Battery: adds 2/4/8/16 point defense slots to starbase
  • Medium Battery: Gun Battery should get renamed for clarification. Adds 1/2/4/8 medium slots.
  • Hanagar Bay: Adds 1/2/4/8 H slots.
  • Torpedo Launcher: Non-Energy Torpedo gains +100% range (doesn't stack) to make them not useless. Energy torpedo gains +25% fire rate. adds 1/2/3/4 torpedo slots.
  • Large Battery: Requires starhold or better. Adds 1/2/3 large slots.
  • X slot: Requires starfort or better. Adds 1/2 X slots.
Buildings:
  • T Slot Battery: Adds a Single T slot weapon. Requires Citadel.
  • Defense Platform Hangar: Adds 5/10/15/20 defense platform slots.
  • Defense Reinforcement: Adds 3/6/9/12 aux slots and increases shields, armor,and hull by 5/10/15/20%
  • Utility Additions: Adds 1/2/3/4 Utility Slots
  • Disruption Field Generator: Reduces enemy Ship Shielding by 5/10/15/20%
  • Nanite Drone Swarm: Friendly Ships gain +1/2/3/5% hull and armor repair when in system. Enemy ships have regen blocked by that amount.

Customization:

I realize that Starbase customization would not be feasible. So here's my compromise: A bunch of buttons and a slider on the starbase that lets you adjust some things. Namely the favored loadout and shield/armor ratio:
AD_4nXdfRBH7ndgX9WjBHYLgMv0ONuLIDBfGANbNLaEVCfQBWCYxAVqGkbq_aQkAd7i_5rSHoqJK7hPZCXhLAj38xYurjp6fJVL5ta30KdycbIi4kUm3ypMilrGK2lzYCO80GxFwqC4DcauT8fZM0ZVT9fXr4I6Y


(Yes I know my paint skills are crap. Bear with me here. It's just a rough idea.)

Basically the buttons on the upper right would tell it what weapons to favor. X would be default: Use anything it feels like. Laser would tell it to favor non-bypass energy weapons (lasers, plasma cannons, etc). The Gun battery would tell it to favor kinetics: autocannons, kinetic artillery, or kinetic guns. The missile would tell it to try to use missiles wherever possible. The disruptors icon would tell it to use disruptors, arc emitters, or cloud lightning.

The slider on the upper right would tell it what ratio to fill its shield and armor slots. Sliding it all the way right would tell it to it to equip only armor. Sliding it all the way left would tell it to forgo them in exchange for shields. Handy if you're focusing on shields or if the starbase is in a pulsar system.
Economic modules/buildings

Unfortunately they aren't balanced here either. As I said, the only thing useful on starbases right now are anchorages (and shipyards obviously though you only need one or two bases full of those. And once you have the Megashipyard you don't even need those anymore.) Barring some niche cases, every starbase runs the same config because there's simply no reason to run anything else.

I'll give my thoughts on existing items first. And how to change them.

Trade Hub: Let's face it, no one builds these anymore. Why? Because 1st off space trade deposits are so minuscule that it's not worth collecting. And also it makes no sense. Why is there 'trade' on some random asteroid out in space? What, is there a single clerk sitting at desk on some lonely asteroid or a gas station sitting all by its lonesome on a toxic world or something? What is going on there?

Jokes aside, my proposed change here is no more trade deposits cause that makes no sense and is bothersome. So instead, trade modules would simply increase trade in the system by +1$/+1.25%/+1.5%/+2% each.

Also no more starting with a trade hub in your home system because again, there's no reason to keep that and everyone just deletes the trade hub in favor for another shipyard.

Solar Array Network:
Aka "Trade Hub but actually useful." Too bad they're kinda static. And not worth using over anchorages (especially midgame). And only available to Gestalts, for some odd reason.
1st proposition change is obviously is cut out the 'gestalt only' nonsense. Everyone should get them now.
Second and bigger one is that rather than the simple starbase scaling I proposed thusfar, instead it scales with environment. Namely, the star(s) its orbiting. Brighter stars produce more, dimmer ones produce less.

  • Pulsar: 12 Energy
  • Class A/Neutron: 10
  • Class B: 6
  • Class F: 4
  • Glass G: 3
  • Class K: 2
  • Class M: 1
  • Brown star/black hole: Too dim
If in a binary or trinary system also takes into account the stars nearby. If they're clustered together, it simply adds all their value together. If they're separate, the starbase takes the closest one, then the other's value is divided in half and then added.

This would make solar arrays more strategic, not something you'd want to just put down willy nilly.


Hydroponics Bay:
Problem right now is that it's too much of a brainless take as a building. Not to mention it invalidates farmers for a good chunk of the game. Everyone takes this as a building slot because... well... why wouldn't you? There's no reason not to. You can just have your anchorages and plop a hydro bay into a building slot. No choices or thought process put into it.

My proposition is to bump up hydroponics bay into a module, while reducing the food given by it to 2/3/4/5, making it so you can't just brainlessly slap it onto every starbase anymore, or run your whole food economy on starbases alone unless you dedicate a whole bunch of them to it. Also increases food output from food deposits by 5/10/15/20%.

Nebula Refinery
Proposition is that it scales with starbase size now. Starts at default value but scales up by 2/3/4x as starbase increases.

Anchorage:

As mentioned, it's too much of a brainless take to just plop these on every starbase to build anything else, just because it's that useful and because nothing else is. Not to mention that more ships = more lag. My proposition is to reduce this to a building. It now adds 3/6/9/12 naval capacity. The Naval Logistics office goes the way of the doto and its tech just adds +1/2/3/4 to the building.

New Modules

Okay so I went over the existing ones, now for ideas on new ones.
Mining Hub:

Yes I know it already technically exists but right now it's just a civic specific upgrade to the solar array. This version would be its own thing. It inceases mineral and strategic resources from mining stations in the system by +2/4/8/12% each.

(x)Research Station Datahub:
Increases Research from research stations by 5/10/15/20%. One for each type to prevent them from becoming the catch all.

Alloy Hub:
Increases alloy output of mining stations by 5/10/15/20%.
Also replaces 4/3/2/1 minerals of any mineral deposits with 1 alloy. Does not stack with the above.

I'm sure someone can think of more but that's all I got for Starbase. Onto the next subject...


On Ships:

More specifically, Titans and Juggernauts. I'll start with the former first.

The problem with the titan is that it was clearly made back in the pre-3.6 days when 'Bigger Ship = Automatically better'. When Neutron Launchers were king and ships were based purely around how many of them you could stack on a ship. However, those days are long gone, and the "All L artillery battleship" (which the Titan was just a bigger version of) has fallen off in usefulness, and titans have not been adjusted to the post-3.6 reality of combat.

As it stands, the only really useful thing about titans is the Auras (the perdition beam would be useful if it didn't waste time targeting corvettes with it and instead prioritized bigger ships out of the gate). And even then, only two are: Nanites and the FTL blocker. The other auras are just dogpoo, to the point I forgot they even existed.

Instead, I propose that the FTL dampener thing just be standard on the titan, and instead of the Auras, we get 'specializations'. These 'Specializations' increase a particular kind of weapon in the fleet (and only that fleet, not on all ships in the system) at the expense of all others.

  • Kinetic Specialization: Increases kinetic weapon firing range and damage, gives +5% kinetic armor penetration. While reducing energy weapon range/damage, missile projectile speed, and explosive damage.
  • Energy Weapon Specialization: Increases energy weapon range and damage, giving +5% energy weapon shield pen. While reducing kinetic weapon fire rate+damage, missile projectile speed, and explosive damage.
  • Explosive specialization: Increases explosive weapon fire rate and range (the latter especially for non-energy torpedos) at the cost of kinetic weapon fire rate/damage and energy weapon fire rate/range
  • Strike Craft Specialization: Gives H slot weapons more strike craft and strike craft regen. Gives strike craft +10% ship multiplier damage, and greatly increases PD slot weapons damage and range. This comes at the cost of range, fire rate, and damage on all other damage.

And then there's the hulls. They're static and as I said, were made for a bygone era. Not flexible in the slightest. So I propose the following:

Bow:
  • Titan: 1x T slot
  • Assault: 3x X
  • Artillery: 6x L
  • Gunship: 12x M
  • Torpedo: 6x G, 6x M
  • Carrier: 4xH, 6x PD
Core:

  • Artillery: 6x L
  • Gunship: 12x M
  • Torpedo: 6x, 6M
  • Carrier: 4H, 4PD
Stern:
  • Artillery: 2x L
  • Broadside: 4x M
  • Torpedo: 2x G, 2x M
  • Carrier: 1x H, 2x P

And now the Juggernaut. Again, no real customization, just a sort of 'kitchen sink' trying to be everything at once but failing to be anything useful. The auras here are... a bit more useful than on the titan, so I won't go over them here. All in all though the Juggernaut is more than a bit of a letdown especially since you only get one of them.

So my proposition here is again more hull choices. But this time, single hull segments instead of a mix of a bunch. Also a new concept to ad is 'hull effects'. Hulls have their own effects in addition to the weapon loadouts and number of shipyards.


Mixed Hull:
  • 2x X slot
  • 6x H slot
  • 5x M slot
  • 5x S slot
  • 6x PD slot
Hull Effect: Auras have twice their effect.
Shipyards: 2

The current one but with some more small and PD slots thrown in to make it marginally more combat effective especially at closer range.

Super Titan Hull:
  • 2x T slot
  • 8x X slot
Hull Effect: +25% weapon damage and range. 4x devastation from orbital bombardment.
Shipyards: 0. No repair ability.

Turns the titan into a massive titan but sacrifices any utility.

Torpedo Boat Hull:

  • 18x G Slot
  • 6x M slot
  • 6x S slot
  • 4x PD slot
  • 2x H slot
Hull Effect: +50% ship speed
Shipyards: 1

Turns the juggernaut into a massive torpedo cruiser.

Gunboat Hull:
  • 15x M slot
  • 15x S slot
  • 2x H slot
  • 8x PD slot
Hull Effect: +25% explosive damage. +50% range on non explosive weapons with <50 base range. +25% fire rate on non-explosive weapons with >49 base range. 3x Orbital bombardment damage to ground armies.
Shipyards: 0 (instead it gains the ability to produce ground armies.)

For those who prefer smaller weapons (missiles, autocannons, or disruptors) or want a ground army crusher but don't want to resort to a colossus.

Mega Carrier Hull:
  • 12x H slot
  • 4x M slot
  • 12x PD slot
Hull Effect: +25% Strike Fighter capacity and regen rate.
Shipyards: 4

Super carrier for crushing corvette/frigate swarms.

Mobile Shipyard Hull:
  • 2x H slot
  • 1x M slot
  • 2x S slot
  • 10x PD slot
Hull Effect: 2x Ship repair speed. Combat stance must be evasive or passive! 0.10x bombardment damage.
Shipyards: 8

Goes all in on the utility at the expense of combat capability.


On Weapons:


Missiles:

Missiles are in kind of a weird spot. One day they're useless. One day they're awesome. One day they suck. One day they're Meta. Right now they're overwhelmingly the latter.

To keep them from being the go-to weapons for everything, I propose a new mechanic for missiles (note: missiles, not torpedoes). Salvo

In short, instead of firing a steady stream of missiles constantly, it instead fires a certain amount of missiles quite fast. Each missle type has a certain amount of Salvo. They fire these missiles off at their fire rate (which would be a lot faster than their current rate is now). However, once their salvo has run dry, they need time to reload.

Basically, think how missiles work in battle tech. Instead of mechs firing constant streams of missiles one at a time constantly, they fire bursts of them off in a single salvo then need time to reload them.

As mentioned, Torpedoes wouldn't be affected by this.



Unique/Critter/Archeotech weapons

Let's face it: the space fauna weapons just suck. There's no reason to use any of them at all and they're F or C tier at best for a reason. And it has the side effect of making space fauna itself little more than a very early game speed bump which players quickly roll over.

I'm also counting Archeotech weapons here too since you can count the number of good archeotech weapons and items on one hand.


So starting with the space fauna and unique weapons. I propose to give each of them a little 'gimmick' to make them... not just joke weapons.


Cutting laser: Instead of the way it is now, it instead would act like an 'energy autocannon', and just like the autocannon, it'd have an S, M, and L equivalent. A weapon with garbage range but very high DPS with bonuses against armor and hull but being very ineffective against shields. However, that's not the gimmick. The gimmick is this: Concentration: Every unshielded shot on a single enemy increases the damage by +1%, up to 50% max. Shooting at another enemy resets this back down to default damage.

Cloud Lightning: I'd recommend this stays as it is currently , but its current uselessness would get mitigated by a new gimmick: Chain Lightning: Every time this strikes an enemy, it has a diminishing chance to jump to another enemy within range. It cannot hit the same target twice.

Energy Siphon: Give it an M slot but not an L slot. The gimmick is Shield Stealer: Any time this weapon deals damage to shields, it heals your own by 75% of that amount.

Null Void Beam: Probably the most disappointing of the unique weapons. It's only good for killing shields (and not very good at that. Autocannons and event eh Energy Siphon both do a much better job of it) so let's give this unloved weapon a fitting gimmick after the shields come down: Entropy: Unshielded enemies struck by this weapon are affected by entropy. Ships under entropy have shield/armor/hull regen negated. Every unshielded shot reduces sublight speed and fire rate by 1%, up to 50%. This effect goes away after 10 days outside of combat.

Dragon Scale Armor: It isn't bad. Quite the contrary. But I think we can do a little better than simply 'Better Neutronium'. Instead: Hardened Scales: This armor protects less than neutronium, but comes with 15% armor hardening. This makes it the armor counterpart of Ancient Suspension Fields.

Speaking of which, that's a good segue into Archeotech weapons. The Ruination Gaze, Ancience Nano Missile Cloud Launcher, and Driller Drones are all fine as they are. And the aformentioend Ancient Suspension Fields and pulse armor is fine too. So Instead, I'll concentrate on three of the worst ones.

Ancient Captivation Collapser: The 50% armor pen is... fine. But since it does heavy damage to against armor anyway it's not that useful. Instead, let's reduce that down to 25% and give it 15% shield penetration to make it a semi-disruptor.

Ancient Macro Batteries: This thing is just sad. The S and M versions are virtually identical to their normal counterparts and thus completely pointless, and the L slot's big advantage.... is that there's no medium range? Really? So to fix this one, I'm going to have to do a very long, very complicated, very indepth fix that will require a whole page worth of explaining. So grab a snack and get ready to read a page or two of how to fix the AMBs...

...Just kidding. All we really need to do here is reduce the cooldown by half.

Why? Well, it's depicted as being two gauss cannons next to each other in a rapid fire config, so it should reflect that. This would make the AMB a longer ranged, yet slower firing autocannon. A hybrid between the normal gauss cannon and the autocannon, if you will.

Ancient Defensive Web Slinger: Instead of just being 'Guardian Point Defense but better', make it a mix of both flak and PD, dealing only 150% damage against shields and armor, but ignoring +50% of both.

Yes to all of this.
 
On starbases:

Let's face it, starbases suck currently. Every single starbase you build is the same with very little variation because there is no reason to do so otherwise. Every starbase is pretty much:
6x Anchorage
1x Naval Logistics Office
1x Hydroponics Bays
1x Resource Silo
1x This Space for Rent
I was brainstorming about a starbase templet/blue print system, similar to planetary automation. But your comprehesive solution will do better.
 
If we already have the ships triangle relationship, why can't we start with all Ship techs from Corvette to Battleship? So you can start the game being able of fully customizing fleets in terms of that rock-paper-scissors relationship? And maybe also start with the most basic Hangar tech?
Then we just keep Titans as the lategame ship tech for the awe factor and auras.

Remember that Colony Ships are huge, and a Battleship is just a big ship with more and larger weapons.
I have never seen a Battleship full of Tier 1 weapons, that would be quite interesting (even though the cost to build one might be a little obscene on the first 10 years).

At the very least let us start with Destroyers, they can be artillery to take down starbases and are efficient against Corvette spam.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: